Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day021.09
Last-Modified: 2000/07/24
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, the third line. What is the evidence
for saying that Hitler ordered them to be taken to the
concentration camps as opposed to having them arrested?
A. There are two pieces of evidence -- well, three. One is
the fact that they were taken to concentration camps; the
second one is the Muller telegram which ordered the
arrests; and the third one is the Goebbels diary.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Hang on. Goebbels's diary does not say
anything about having all of them taken to concentration
camps, does it?
A. No, just arrested.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: So, the evidence for that, saying he ordered
them to be taken to concentration camps, consists of - ---
A. Well, my Lord, I think one has to work it out. They could
only really have been taken to state prisons, because you
needed a regular legal trial to put people in state
prisons. So this has to be an action that takes place
outside the regular legal framework, a penal system. You
cannot keep them in police cells. If you have that number
of people, the only place you can put them in is
. P-77
concentration camps and, of course, that indeed is what
happened. The Muller telex is quoted on pages 265 to 266.
MR IRVING: Does the final sentence (on page 277) of that
paragraph, "Hitler made no attempt to halt this
inhumanity. He stood by, and thus deserved the odium that
now fell on all Germany", not refer to the whole episode?
A. Let me just read: "20,000 Jews were already loaded onto
and transported to the concentration camps at Dachau,
Buchenwald and Oranienburg. Hitler had made no attempt to
halt this inhumanity. He stood by." He did not stand by,
Mr Irving, he ordered the whole thing. He ordered the
arrests and he ordered the burning of the synagogues, and
he ordered the destruction of Jewish shops and dwellings.
Q. And?
A. He ordered the arrests, and he did not merely stand by.
Q. Have I left any doubt in the minds of the readers that, in
fact, he went further and that he ordered a massive fine
on the Jewish community and various punitive measures?
A. You accept that after the event.
Q. I accept this. Is this another concession by me or have I
stated this in accordance with what the documents tell us?
A. You point me to where you state this, please. You
certainly said that, in court, Hitler ordered the economic
measures against the Jews.
Q. Is another source which I rely on, Professor Evans, the
. P-78
diary of the SA commander Viktor Lutze?
A. Yes.
Q. I rely on it quite extensively, because his men were
involved that night, were they not?
A. That is right, yes.
Q. Were you able to check my references?
A. Let me have a look. No, I am afraid we ----.
Q. Do you know where the diary is now?
A. It is in the Friedrich Ebe Stiftung, I think.
Q. Is it in the archives of the Friedrich Ebe Stiftung which
is equivalent of the archives of the Labour Party in Germany?
A. Yes, the report of the Social Democrat Party archive.
Q. Did I have complete access to that diary when I wrote that book?
A. I assume so, since you cited that we were denied access.
Q. I had access to the source and you were denied access to
it?
A. That is right, yes.
Q. Is it possible therefore that there are things in the
diary of Viktor Lutze of which you were unaware?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Such as?
A. Yes, give me some examples. Show me.
MR IRVING: The fact that he was personally opposed to the
pogrom and ordered that it should not occur, and that the
SA people should not participate in it.
. P-79
A. Could you show me the passages in the diary where he says
that, please.
Q. I am referring to paragraph 1 on page 246.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: 246 of what?
MR IRVING: Of his expert report, my Lord.
A. Yes.
Q. Sorry, I have forgotten what the question was now.
Q. In broad general terms, is it likely that, having had
access to the diary of Viktor Lutze, and your not having
had access to it, therefore I know more about what is in
the diary than you do?
A. Well, that is true but, of course, it has to be regarded
with extreme suspicion. What you claim is that Lutze had
misgivings, that indeed he ordered the SA not to stay out,
and that only three of the 28 SA groups received orders to
stage demonstrations.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: But the source for that -- I am sorry to
interrupt again -- is not Lutze but Juttner.
MR IRVING: My Lord, if you look at note 34 on page 251, we do
have indication that I had the diary of Lutze, that I was
using it and relying on it.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, but we are really looking at footnote
31. It is perfectly true you do there refer to the diary
entry of Lutze, but that does not say what you put in your
text. What you put in your text comes from gruppenFuhrer
Max Juttner.
. P-80
MR IRVING: As well, yes.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Not as well.
MR IRVING: Obviously one relies on many different sources when
one is writing that but, in view of the fact that I had
the Lutze diary which has not been available like many
other documents to the Defence, this is the picture I am
trying to build up. I have had a lot of documents that
have not been available to the expert witnesses in this case.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am bound to say I find that a bit bizarre.
If you have first hand evidence from Lutze as to what he
said, why would you cite somebody else as support for what
you say in your text Lutze said?
MR IRVING: Well, when you look at note 34, where we have the
German text of one fragment of what the Lutze diary
contains, the problem is once again that all my records
have been donated to the German government archives in
Bonn in June 1993, after this passage was written, and
I no longer have the Lutze diary. I have filing cards,
but that is all I have left.
A. What we had access to of course were your notes, as this
footnote says, on the Lutze diary.
MR IRVING: But in view of the fact that you write on page 251
quite robustly at the end of paragraph 1, once more
Irving's account relies on a tissue of inventions,
manipulations, suppressions and omissions, and I have been
. P-81
telling you for the last two hours there are numbers of
documents to which you paid no attention or to which you
have had no access, this is probably an over robust
verdict. Would you agree?
A. Well, this is your account that Hitler did "everything he
could to prevent things nasty happening" to the Jews in
the pogrom of 8, 9, particularly 9 and 10 of November
1938. That is your account and it does indeed rely on a
tissue of inventions, manipulations, suppressions and omissions.
Q. You describe even now the interview with von Below, the
Schaub papers, the Bruckner papers, whatever they were,
as being just this tissue of inventions?
A. Yes. I think you accept their lies as being truth because
that supports your line.
Q. You think that I accept their lies as being true?
A. Yes.
Q. Because it supports my line?
A. Indeed.
Q. You have no evidence for that at all, apart from the fact
that there are a number of documents which can be
interpreted in a different way. Would you consider the
Eberstein telegram, the one signed by Eberstein during the
night -- do you remember the one?
A. Yes.
Q. It is a triggering, an igniting telegram, is it not?
. P-82
A. No. I do not think it is an igniting telegram. The
igniting event of course was Goebbels' speech at
10 o'clock to the senior party people, the SA leaders.
Q. Perhaps we should have a look at that telegram. Can we
identify the two page telegram, the one with the
typescript signature of von Eberstein?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is probably in L2, is it not?
MR RAMPTON: That is L2, tab 1, page 7.
A. I do not think I have this.
MR IRVING: My Lord, you will see I am now working backwards
from Hitler's fury or from round about that time. It is a
two-page telegram, is it not, typescript?
A. Yes.
Q. And, if you look at the second page, it has two signatures
on it. One is the typescript signature of von Eberstein?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was the police chief of Munich and Bavaria?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. And it is counter signed in handwriting by a
Kanzellaiungestelter, which is some kind of Chancellery
official?
A. Clerk, yes.
Q. Eberstein has not signed it himself, has he?
A. No. It seems to be a copy. It is a copy indeed.
Abschrift.
Q. Are you familiar with the German Civil Service method of
. P-83
occasionally sending out telegrams over the signature of
the boss?
A. Yes.
Q. Which does not necessarily mean that the boss is actually
there when it is being sent out? It is just his authority
that it is being sent out on?
A. Of course, done with his authority.
Q. So the fact that this is a telegram signed at 2.10 a.m. in
typescript by Eberstein does not necessarily mean that
Eberstein is physically at the police headquarters at that
moment? He might be somewhere completely different?
A. That is a possibility, yes.
Q. Yes. So that it is entirely within the bounds of
possibility that at this moment Eberstein, unaware that
this was going on, was at Hitler's residence, having
strips torn off him by his boss, by Hitler, while somebody
else had said, you had better send this message out over
Eberstein's signature because there has to be this going
on tonight. It is an igniting telegram, is it not, of a
sort? He is saying about the police standing back and the
synagogues are going to be burning and this kind of thing,
is it not?
A. It is very similar to previous telegrams, the Muller and
the Heydrich telegrams. I do not really think it is very
likely that Eberstein was unaware of the fact that this
rather important telegram was being sent out under his
. P-84
name. I find that very difficult to believe. They had
have telephones of course in Germany at this time.
Q. If at this moment Eberstein was in Hitler's residence, it
would still be possible for this telegram to be is sent
out by police headquarters, over his typed name
authenticated by this staff member, would it not?
A. The telephone, you say?
Q. This is the way that the German bureaucracy works
sometimes. The order would go out over the name of the
boss, but it would be signed by some responsible official
on his part, on his behalf?
A. Yes. I think, though, he would have known about it, of
course. The boss would have been apprised of it. He
simply would not have been in a physical position to sign it.
Q. So, if we have 2 or 3 people on Hitler's staff who say
that Eberstein was here with them at that time, then it is
not necessarily contradicted by the existence of this
telegram with Eberstein's typed signature on it?
A. It is possible there might have been a telephone
conversation, as I said. We do not have any evidence of that.
Q. Are you familiar with the message that went out very
shortly afterwards over the signature of Opdenhof of
Rudolf Hess's staff?
A. That is at 2.56 a.m.?
. P-85
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
MR RAMPTON: That is page 9 of tab 1.
MR IRVING: One of those messages has an igniting function, if
I can put it like that, and the other message has an
extinguishing function?
A. I do not accept either of those claims.
Q. If the second message timed at 2.56 on the notepaper of
the Deputy Fuhrer orders that actions are to stop, then
this has an extinguishing function?
MR RAMPTON: I think it might be proper to get Professor Evans
to translate this short little message as he stands in the
witness box, rather than receiving what to my mind is a
completely pie-eyed version.
MR IRVING: I think it would be very nice if I was allowed to
conduct my cross-examination in the manner I wish.
A. Could we see this document.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I remember this fairly well but it would be
helpful if we just read it through together.
MR IRVING: It is noticeable that every time I am about to make
a killer point----

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.